ADUK Archive

having worked in the insurance industry - writing logic engines for some of their underwriting engines (though not primarily car insurance) there is a logic...

- punter thinks - it is unfair, I did nothing by parking in that car park, why should I be penalised
- computer / stats / underwriting logic says - this person has already shown that they might park somewhere also used by others who don't take care - therefore they are a higher risk

statistically claims are grouped, someone with one claim is more likely to have further claims... and patterns of action (even when passive) / etc. are indicative of the future... so your daughter's risk is where she parks, she might not have had anything to do with the accident, but continuing to park there will increase her risk levels...

Alasdair

Load the guilty, not the inocent.

at a non-emotive logic level it is fair to load both...

in the above example the simple response is that parking in a car park used by others, esp. a pub car park is an increased risk and is a decision made by the person choosing to park there - therefore they play a part in increasing the risk and therefore get penalised...

it is the same logic that says that if you choose to become a professional musician your policy will cost more (you might carry other professional musicians and any injuries in an accident are highly likely to lead to loss of earnings)...

therefore in insurance terms and logic both played a role in the van hitting the car - one in parking there, and one in not putting the handbrake on - both are penalised and probably by different amounts in accordance to the role their decisions played...

Alasdair

akirk wrote:at a non-emotive logic level it is fair to load both...

in the above example the simple response is that parking in a car park used by others, esp. a pub car park is an increased risk and is a decision made by the person choosing to park there - therefore they play a part in increasing the risk and therefore get penalised...

it is the same logic that says that if you choose to become a professional musician your policy will cost more (you might carry other professional musicians and any injuries in an accident are highly likely to lead to loss of earnings)...

therefore in insurance terms and logic both played a role in the van hitting the car - one in parking there, and one in not putting the handbrake on - both are penalised and probably by different amounts in accordance to the role their decisions played...

Alasdair

So, using logic, how can I decide where to park in a car park to ensure no other unsecured vehicle will hit mine?

I am not sure you can!

I think that this is always going to be a case of insurers winning... only pointing out the logic they use - which out of context is very reasonable - it is simply that in real life it doesn't seem fair, but insurers / actuaries aren't all that worried about real life...

ultimately any ownership of / driving of a car has a risk - they simply try to analyse it...
if you only drive 3,000 miles a year from your garage to park on your friend's drive - you might be very low risk... someone who drives more miles / parks in a public area carries more risk... someone whose journey every day means parking in a very rough area is higher risk... someone whose job means a car being parked on a building site might be high risk...

when they interogate us to work out a quote they don't get all this information - so some of the risk is calculated / assumed / derived from claims - you claim due to an accident in a pub car park - they didn't realise that you parked in that enviornment - they now consider you a higher risk...

there is an argument to say that had they known they would have charged you that extra up front as you were always that higher risk - so in fact you have had the advantage of a lower premium until the time that your claim notifies them of your true risk level - actually to your advantage at an actuarial level! in essence you were always the higher risk at their logic level, but they work on innocent until proven guilty so charge you less until the risk is proven...

another way to think of it is that you have a number of building blocks that add up to = your risk level / the premium...
- some are known up front (age / car / occupation / points / etc.)
- some are not known until they become apparent (use of car / environment around / your driving skills / the presence of others with poor skills / etc.)
Your premium should cover them all - but they charge you only for what they know - as more becomes known, so the premium goes up...

as a canny driver you might consider it to your advantage not to be in a place for them to consider any of that potential additional risk - i.e. avoid others etc.!

Alasdair

akirk wrote::) I am not sure you can!
i.e. avoid others etc.!

Alasdair

So, stay at home then.
That must be the safest environment, so long as one is aware of the dangers therein.

WhoseGeneration wrote:So, using logic, how can I decide where to park in a car park to ensure no other unsecured vehicle will hit mine?

If you could obtain detailed collision stats for every car park you might choose to park in you could find out which ones have the lowest collision rate.

The problem would be finding that data - I doubt very much anyone actually collects it.

Quick update for those interested:

Chased my insurers today who then chased the other party; after a bit of a kick up the proverbial they have finally decided to admit full liability for the accident *faith partially restored in the insurance system!!*

Don't know the details as to why they accepted liability (whether it's because they knew they were in the wrong or because the company didn't want the hassle...) but still a win either way.

Thanks for all your advice

Good result. Nice one. Although, from what you said, there seemed to be little option we can't always rely on common sense in determining these things...

Also bear in mind that HC Rule 185 contains the following diagram:

martine wrote:Hi WashBurner and welcome.

https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/roundabouts-184-to-190

Rule 186...
...When taking an exit to the right or going full circle, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise
signal right and approach in the right-hand lane
keep to the right on the roundabout until you need to change lanes to exit the roundabout...

also

186

Signals and position

When taking the first exit to the left, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise
signal left and approach in the left-hand lane
keep to the left on the roundabout and continue signalling left to leave.